Probability and evolution from natural causes

[pshun2404]

What is incorrect or correct about this presentation....

 

[Halbhh]

Right off, at the beginning, the assumption jumps too far (that they know enough about chemical probabilities, as if those are all pinned down neat and tidy (they are not)), and helpfully, I believe God created ALL that is. Every last thing. So I'm not a skeptic, etc., and can give you far better information than this video.


Here is a more carefully realistic version about how God's Design -- physics -- works in this regard:

Look at God's Amazing Design!! -->

Watch Full Episodes Online of NOVA on PBS | S43 Ep2: Life's Rocky Start
(if one is pressed for time, they can fruitfully start at about 24 minutes, after that 3rd commercial).

We are on the amazing search to find hints of what God did, by His amazing Design.

 

[Speedwell]

What is incorrect or correct about this presentation....

The assumption that given the atoms that make up a protein molecule, all possible combinations of these atoms are equally likely to form.

That, and a blatant lie about Information Theory told by "Dr. Don Johnson."

The video is anonymous. but it smells of John Safarti.

 

[pshun2404]

Cool! I will watch it ut as for the one I presented did YOU watch it? The point is a good one.

Right off, at the beginning, the assumption jumps too far (that they know enough about chemical probabilities, as if those are all pinned down neat and tidy (they are not)), and helpfully, I believe God created ALL that is. Every last thing. So I'm not a skeptic, etc., and can give you far better information than this video.


Here is a more carefully realistic version about how God's Design -- physics -- works in this regard:

Look at God's Amazing Design!! -->

Watch Full Episodes Online of NOVA on PBS | S43 Ep2: Life's Rocky Start
(if one is pressed for time, they can fruitfully start at about 24 minutes, after that 3rd commercial).

We are on the amazing search to find hints of what God did, by His amazing Design.

It was a great video and I have always been a fan of NOVA but it does not address the issue of the OP nor does it in any way refute it. What about the probabilities question? The math has been done by many (mostly non-creationists who believe in evolution but are just being honest) and the result is always the same. Something other is involved, or the earth is simply much much older than we think.

 

[pshun2404]

The assumption that given the atoms that make up a protein molecule, all possible combinations of these atoms are equally likely to form.

That, and a blatant lie about Information Theory told by "Dr. Don Johnson."

The video is anonymous. but it smells of John Safarti.

You might be right, but even if given the never demonstrated "self-replicating" RNA proposed (which has never once been found in nature outside a living system but only in labs) that still leaves the odds astronomical for just one human body let alone what happens to them when multiplied to all from all time and THAT does not take into account all the variety of life even now...

So regardless if the person revealing this is this guy, or atheist evolutionist Harold F. Blum of Harvard, or the agnostic Sir Frederick Hoyle, or the secular mathematician Schutzenberger, the point is made. The odds of the formation of functional organisms by purely natural means is most highly unlikely and as Hoyle would indicate, the earth must be far far older if the process is correct.

Now though "creationists" like Johnson cling to or use this, that does not dismiss the point because it was non-creationists who originally made the point. People like John Safarti were in diapers when these scientists came to this conclusion.

 

[Armoured]

I love the probability argument. You can use it to prove no one has ever won a lottery.

Also, more seriously, fails to address that modern cells with their complex proteins are not what the first life was like, nor that natural selection was at work for a long time in the pre-biotic envirinment. A simple self replicating molecule is all you need, and we've found some very simple ones, much simpler than complex cellular proteins.

 

[pshun2404]

The assumption that given the atoms that make up a protein molecule, all possible combinations of these atoms are equally likely to form.

That, and a blatant lie about Information Theory told by "Dr. Don Johnson."

The video is anonymous. but it smells of John Safarti.

Oh also one more point "information science" is different from "information theory"! Information theory ONLY considers information that arises not causes and that is a much larger difference than peole care to explore.

 

[Halbhh]

Cool! I will watch it ut as for the one I presented did YOU watch it? The point is a good one.


It was a great video and I have always been a fan of NOVA but it does not address the issue of the OP nor does it in any way refute it. What about the probabilities question? The math has been done by many (mostly non-creationists who believe in evolution but are just being honest) and the result is always the same. Something other is involved, or the earth is simply much much older than we think.

It's not possible to just calculate the probability of an complex organic molecule assembling *except* by specifying certain conditions that are very definite -- we are not able to model all possible situations of any kind, because even to just model one specific narrow situation, such as hot mud on the seafloor, requires vast computing power. In other words, the assumptions being used in the 7 minute video are flawed in at least 2 ways -- to presume we know all relevant initial conditions (we do not, we can only guess at some possible scenarios, like hot seafloor mud for example), and 2nd, to assume we could calculate a general case of all possible scenarios (we can not, we are not even close to that calculating ability with the fastest supercomputer arrays, not even by a large number of orders of magnitude).

It is *not* at all a simple case of whether the right atoms can collide just right(!) -- that is not how the chemistry works in the real world. Reactions are catalyzed, facilitated by surrounding surfaces or conditions, etc. The surrounding conditions radically affect all the free atoms and molecules and what they do. So the calculation used in the 7 minute video isn't meaningful to begin with, it's just unconnected to actual situations which involve definite conditions, such as for instance, hot mud, or other definite conditions (of which a great many possible scenarios (even near infinite) are possible, and we only have an idea of a very few.

 

[Halbhh]

Cool! I will watch it ut as for the one I presented did YOU watch it? The point is a good one.


It was a great video and I have always been a fan of NOVA but it does not address the issue of the OP nor does it in any way refute it. What about the probabilities question? The math has been done by many (mostly non-creationists who believe in evolution but are just being honest) and the result is always the same. Something other is involved, or the earth is simply much much older than we think.

The useful thing to realize is that because God created all things, *He created physics*. That means that "natural processes" *are* His processes, His design.

See? Physics, chemistry are *not* "undirected" in that essential way. This is His creation. This is His physics. This is His design for how chemistry unfolds.

It works.

As He meant for it to.

May He additionally to the magnificent physics He created have also intervened directly, like a genetic engineer? Sure, He could have, may well indeed have. Could be either way. It's really speculation, but my own speculation is that He has actively intervened even before such species as Neanderthals arose in dramatic ways. For example, I think He directed the asteroid -- chose just the right one, the right size, at just the right time, to alter Earth -- and thereby killed off most of the dinosaurs, but left the mammals thriving and rising to dominance. It's just a speculation though. Here's what I consider less speculative -- I think He would not allow too large an asteroid to hit Earth....i.e. I believe in God. I know we are here because He planned and accomplished for us to be.

 

[Larniavc]

What is incorrect or correct about this presentation....

Evolution is not random.

 

[Halbhh]

Evolution is not random.

Right. If God created all that is, then evolution could not be 'random' in an ultimate sense, but would logically be His intended natural process (one of many).

 

[Speedwell]

The bottom line is, that when a chemical reaction takes place, the outcome is the most probable outcome given local conditions. It's not as if the constituent atoms just happened to bump into each other and formed that compound by random chance, and could equally likely have formed some other one--which is the basis of the probability calculations offered by the video. It doesn't matter who makes the calculation, creationist or secular scientist; it's wrong, and when a creationist does it it's intentionally misleading.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh also one more point "information science" is different from "information theory"! Information theory ONLY considers information that arises not causes and that is a much larger difference than people care to explore.

On the contrary, sources of information are well covered by Information Theory. Have you ever read anything of Shannon's? Mind you, I'm no expert, but my undergraduate degree is in math and I have made some use of IT in my career and have at least an informed layman's grasp of the subject. Enough that when I read Safarti and his comical sidekick Werner Gitt I can see where they start to twist it.

 

[keith99]

I watched a minute and a half up to that point all the video had done is pull a number out of the air and explain how big the number was. I fast forwarded to about half way through and still more of the same.

No support for the number, not even an appeal to authority, not even a definition of what it meant in terms of a definition. It matters. For example when we say the chance of winning the lottery the chance is one in a million the implicit meaning is this mis the chance of a particular ticket winning. The chances of a regular player winning is much higher (n in a million where n is how many tickets they buy) and the chance of someone winning sooner or later is almost 1 in 1.

So just what does their number represent? we don't know because they don't say. And just what does guided process mean? Is gravity a guiding process? The odds of a loose rock making its way to the bottom of a hill without some guiding process is pretty slim, with gravity and a lot of time it is very good.

In short a useless vidoe.

 

[pshun2404]

It's not possible to just calculate the probability of an complex organic molecule assembling *except* by specifying certain conditions that are very definite -- we are not able to model all possible situations of any kind, because even to just model one specific narrow situation, such as hot mud on the seafloor, requires vast computing power. In other words, the assumptions being used in the 7 minute video are flawed in at least 2 ways -- to presume we know all relevant initial conditions (we do not, we can only guess at some possible scenarios, like hot seafloor mud for example), and 2nd, to assume we could calculate a general case of all possible scenarios (we can not, we are not even close to that calculating ability with the fastest supercomputer arrays, not even by a large number of orders of magnitude).

It is *not* at all a simple case of whether the right atoms can collide just right(!) -- that is not how the chemistry works in the real world. Reactions are catalyzed, facilitated by surrounding surfaces or conditions, etc. The surrounding conditions radically affect all the free atoms and molecules and what they do. So the calculation used in the 7 minute video isn't meaningful to begin with, it's just unconnected to actual situations which involve definite conditions, such as for instance, hot mud, or other definite conditions (of which a great many possible scenarios (even near infinite) are possible, and we only have an idea of a very few.

First off, thank you so much for an intelligent and civil response, It was well thought out. And I agree with yout first paragraph and understand the problem with not really knowing all the conditions and elements involved are a plague for strict evolutionists as well.

But paragraph 2 is another matter. You said

“It is *not* at all a simple case of whether the right atoms can collide just right(!) -- that is not how the chemistry works in the real world. Reactions are catalyzed, facilitated by surrounding surfaces or conditions, etc. The surrounding conditions radically affect all the free atoms and molecules and what they do.”

But the presenter makes the case of applied laws of physics and chemistry. Organic molecules of course develop naturally, for in nature, covalent and hydrogen bonding are natural processes governed by natural law and can happen pretty much anywhere conditions are right, but that is where the ball drops.

The odds still being high, short chain RNA molecules should form in nature (and we have found a few) but these do not re-combine to form functional proteins and these do NOT self-replicate (we see this and can demonstrate this to be true). Bit that is what we are told we are to believe happened (thus a hypothesis driven historical NARRATIVE has been imposed to support an empty “belief”).

In a lab when an outside intelligence designs an experiment with variables that they manipulate until they get a desired result, that’s just the wonder of intelligence using chemistry, but this does not happen in nature outside the context of an already extant living system (we have zero cases and it cannot be observed to be true).

“So the calculation used in the 7 minute video isn't meaningful to begin with, it's just unconnected to actual situations which involve definite conditions, such as for instance, hot mud, or other definite conditions (of which a great many possible scenarios (even near infinite) are possible, and we only have an idea of a very few.”

And the truth is you yourself have NO IDEA about these alleged conditions, but the math is the key to the video not the proposed scenarios).

Dobzhansky in, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and their Molecular Matrices (Ed. S. W. Fox, New York, Academic Press, 1965) said "Natural selection is differential reproduction, organism perpetuation. In order to have natural selection, you have to have self-reproduction or self-replication and at least two self-replicating units of entities ...”

We KNOW this is true and this is why he starts out with the two component scenario admitting that IF the conditions are right then yes sure...and the odds are well within the range of probability. But when he goes on he is not saying anything different that other Evolutionists as far as what is involved. So please read the next post and feel free to comment.

 

[pshun2404]

Use your mind free of what you have been taught for just a moment.

If a protein molecule composed of nearly 300 amino acids, linked specifically in chain form, that are arranged into over 10,000 possible combinations, the odds of it occurring just once would be around 1 in 10 with 300 zeros following it. To many this seems to imply it could RARELY have happened in a Universe even 20 billion years old let alone one only planet that is only 13.5 billion, but apparently it is alleged that this is exactly what happened. But where’s the beef? It could happen but that would not explain how many times it would have to have happened over and over displaying such a wide variety of consistently repeating patterns in each respective life form or species.

After years of experimentation and research Professor Harold Blum finally admitted that, “The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide…seems impossible” (Harold Blum, Time’s Arrow and Evolution, 3rd edition, 1968, pg 158 on). Yet Professor Blum being an Evolutionist insists it must have. But based on what? (please understand this is a great work, and actually supports evolution. He is just honest about this one dilemma)

Undoubtedly we have actually found two or three already formed free floating polypeptides in nature. But were they formed by chemical law or were they actually the remains of some previously alive creature? Were they even polypeptides suited for life? In over 100 years of research shouldn’t there be many, many, more if they even remotely explain the presence of the billions just in today’s extant life forms?

If a protein molecule composed of nearly 300 amino acids, linked specifically in chain form, that are arranged into over 10,000 possible combinations, the odds of it occurring just once would be around 1 in 10 with 300 zeros following it. To many this seems to imply it could RARELY have happened in a Universe even 20 billion years old let alone one only planet that is only 13.5 billion, but apparently it is alleged that this is exactly what happened. But where’s the beef? It could happen but that would not explain how many times it would have to have happened over and over displaying such a wide variety of consistently repeating patterns in each respective life form or species.

Consider just one human body which contains over 100,000 such proteins, with millions of polypeptides, not even taking into account the millions of micro-organisms living in and on it (just this one). And that also allegedly “by chance” these proteins repeated themselves in the billions of humans and all supposedly “coincidentally” all code to the same exact way with the same types of functions and forms, etc., with very precise systemic balance parameters and sensitivities in order to maintain a very limited specified and identical form of necessary homeostasis.

Are we really supposed to believe this theory without any actual evidence or proof? Allegedly we are. But if we are being objective how can we? The random chance of this happening in order to produce one human being would be 1 time in 10 with 3,000,000 zeros after it, but what about the billions of just humans who ever existed let alone other animals?


The only logical and rational conclusion based on the observable and demonstrable facts is that random chance of a totally natural process of abiogenesis simply cannot be responsible for the presence of life in a Universe even 20 billion years old. So it either did not happen as we assume, or else the Universe is much older than we have been taught.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You might be right, but even if given the never demonstrated "self-replicating" RNA proposed (which has never once been found in nature outside a living system but only in labs) that still leaves the odds astronomical for just one human body let alone what happens to them when multiplied to all from all time and THAT does not take into account all the variety of life even now...

You have two problems here.

First, you clearly aren't grasping the actual length of geological time and how much opportunity for change and speciation that presents to an evolutionary process.
Second, you operate under the assumption of completely "undirected" and "random" process. This is incorrect. They are not completely undirected, nore random.

They are undirected only in the sense of there not being some specific "end goal form" or something. Humans, or any other species, weren't meant or planned to exist.
But it is certainly NOT undirected in the sense that "anything can happen". Evolution is directed simply put, by the environment of the niche a population occupies in the eco-system.

Natural selection is not completely "undirected" nor is it "random".
It is directed towards becoming better at surviving and reproducing. It's like an arms race.

So regardless if the person revealing this is this guy, or atheist evolutionist Harold F. Blum of Harvard, or the agnostic Sir Frederick Hoyle, or the secular mathematician Schutzenberger, the point is made.

The point is invalid.

The odds of the formation of functional organisms by purely natural means is most highly unlikely

If you are talking about evolution, then the odds of speciation happening are 1 in 1 unless complete and total extinction happens.

If you are talking about the origins of life - it is unknown at this point and you can't calculate the probability of an unknown.

Now though "creationists" like Johnson cling to or use this, that does not dismiss the point because it was non-creationists who originally made the point.

It doesn't matter who made the point. The point is invalid because of what it is, regardless of who made it

 

[Speedwell]

And the truth is you yourself have NO IDEA about these alleged conditions, but the math is the key to the video not the proposed scenario.

But we know that the probability space is not flat to begin with, and gets less so as the chemical compounds become more complex--ask any chemist who synthesizes organic compounds for a living. That is the flaw in the video.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

What is incorrect or correct about this presentation....

It's just a bunch of logical fallacies and misleading assertions strung together to impress the ignorant.

Let's start with meaningless, unexplained big numbers as an initial scare tactic. This leads (unsurprisingly) to an attack on abiogenesis. Throw in an out of context sound bite about information theory, and we can conclude (da dah) that evolution is impossible.

 

[keith99]

It's just a bunch of logical fallacies and misleading assertions strung together to impress the ignorant.

Let's start with meaningless, unexplained big numbers as an initial scare tactic. This leads (unsurprisingly) to an attack on abiogenesis. Throw in an out of context sound bite about information theory, and we can conclude (da dah) that evolution is impossible.

And it seems they don't even know just how large their meaningless number really is. Look up teh Eddington number. Then realize that it is of the same order of magnitude as the total number of Protons, Neutrons and Electrons in the Universe!

I'm familiar with that number because it was used to show just how unlikely the observed result of the Geiger-Marsden experiment. Real physics or chemistry is tested not pulled out of the air.

Geiger–Marsden experiment - Wikipedia